What is time? Does time even exist?

[swansont]

If I were to stay on a shore of a river I will see that river go only in one direction. Or, relatively speaking I can be on that river and the water flows in only one direction. That is all I know. If would know more, like water reaching the ocean then evaporate, fall back on the ground, and then spring again and back into that river (closing the circle) I will not call or refer to time as linear, don't I?

Why not? If that cycle was uniform and you could identify a particular bit of the water, you could use it as a basis for timekeeping, which we view as linear. It's the basic element of a clock — something that regularly repeats.

And yet from this simple every day concept people twist the meaning of time, into time travel, time dilation effects, treat it as a forth dimension, or something even stranger. in the hands of the general populace time seems to have transformed into this weird flexible rubber stuff with so many hidden doors that it's a wonder Shakespeare had time to write his plays due to all the time travelling tourists.

 

So again, there is no time. There's just a vibrating crystal/ Cesium,/clockwork device ticking us all by.

You appear to be equating measurement of time and time itself.

 

You stand on a street corner and notice a large bus go past you. You cross the street. Both you and that bus occupied the same location (the same spatial coordinates), and yet you are not splattered all over the pavement. Why is that, if there is no such thing as time?

[Daniel Foreman]

 

If I were to stay on a shore of a river I will see that river go only in one direction. Or, relatively speaking I can be on that river and the water flows in only one direction. That is all I know. If would know more, like water reaching the ocean then evaporate, fall back on the ground, and then spring again and back into that river (closing the circle) I will not call or refer to time as linear, don't I?

Why not? If that cycle was uniform and you could identify a particular bit of the water, you could use it as a basis for timekeeping, which we view as linear. It's the basic element of a clock — something that regularly repeats.

 

That's a mighty fine story you guys are telling yourselves. It's also total hokum. There is absolutely no evidence that time is a river, an ocean, or any other kind of liquid moving entity, force, dimension or whatever. This is the kind of rubbish that science fiction uses to paint a pretty picture in your minds. As far as I'm concerned it's right up there with harry potter waving his magic stick to turn mice into goblets. Don't confuse science fiction with proven fact guys.

 

 

 

You appear to be equating measurement of time and time itself.

 

You stand on a street corner and notice a large bus go past you. You cross the street. Both you and that bus occupied the same location (the same spatial coordinates), and yet you are not splattered all over the pavement. Why is that, if there is no such thing as time?

 

That's because time is nothing but a measurement. It is nothing more than the conversion of regular motion into measured units.

 

What you are discussing there isn't time, it's motion. Obviously matter can not be in the same place in space simultaneously. Matter itself only occupies a small space. It can move freely within that space (unless an influencing force, or other matter gets in the way, or it simply has no more momentum left). Time has no governing factors, or all controlling influence over matter, we know that gravity does, electromagnetism does, we know we can apply kinetic energy to an object to temporarily overcome theses forces and that ultimately that kinetic energy runs out (unless in a vacuum without the strong influence of forces). None of this requires an all powerful time force/ dimension to work. It only requires classical mechanics which simply takes 3D space, and allows matter to move about within it. Time is a tool used to describe past events and predict future events within a system, it is nothing more or less then that. It does it's job very well. But time is nothing more than a measurement, and there is absolutely no evidence to the contrary.

[Strange]

Again, the second is defined in terms of something that invovles no motion.

[Daniel Foreman]

As soon as you start getting into the hyperfine structure and hyperfine states that atomic clocks use, you start arriving at words like electron spin, angular momentum, motion, etc. Now you can argue this point all you want, but it doesn't change my point. The basic language remains the same. So it's not unfair of me to say that time even within the mechanisms of an atomic clock is based on the transitions between movements. That is all that is being counted.

 

Furthermore you repeating this point, doesn't affect my original statement. If you want to prove that time exists, then prove it. Otherwise you're just distracting from the overall concept.

[krash661]

Don't confuse science fiction with proven fact guys.

sci - fi can be real more than you think.

Time has no governing factors, or all controlling influence over matter....

......and there is absolutely no evidence to the contrary.

birth ------> death,

beginning -----> end,

 

either way, this is time.

 

and we are in the flow of it

Edited August 15, 2013 by krash661

[swansont]

That's a mighty fine story you guys are telling yourselves. It's also total hokum. There is absolutely no evidence that time is a river, an ocean, or any other kind of liquid moving entity, force, dimension or whatever. This is the kind of rubbish that science fiction uses to paint a pretty picture in your minds. As far as I'm concerned it's right up there with harry potter waving his magic stick to turn mice into goblets. Don't confuse science fiction with proven fact guys.

 

I have no idea how you got this interpretation from what I wrote.

 

That's because time is nothing but a measurement. It is nothing more than the conversion of regular motion into measured units.

 

What you are discussing there isn't time, it's motion. Obviously matter can not be in the same place in space simultaneously.

Um, simultaneously? What's that? Can't have simultaneity without time.

 

 

Matter itself only occupies a small space. It can move freely within that space (unless an influencing force, or other matter gets in the way, or it simply has no more momentum left). Time has no governing factors, or all controlling influence over matter

That's not the same as whether it exists. You are arguing against a straw man.

 

we know that gravity does, electromagnetism does, we know we can apply kinetic energy to an object to temporarily overcome theses forces and that ultimately that kinetic energy runs out (unless in a vacuum without the strong influence of forces). None of this requires an all powerful time force/ dimension to work.

Nobody has claimed time is a force. A dimension, yes, as per my bus/collision example. It is orthogonal to the spatial dimensions.

 

It only requires classical mechanics which simply takes 3D space, and allows matter to move about within it. Time is a tool used to describe past events and predict future events within a system, it is nothing more or less then that. It does it's job very well. But time is nothing more than a measurement, and there is absolutely no evidence to the contrary.

As I said before, time doesn't exist in the same way that the spatial dimensions don't exist. Good luck trying to do your classical physics problems without them.

 

[Daniel Foreman]

sci - fi can be real more than you think.

 

birth ------> death,

beginning -----> end,

 

either way, this is time.

 

and we are in the flow of it

 

/start sci-fi rant

 

No it's not. Sure series like star trek have demonstrated iPad style touch screens and thin portable tablets. But at the same time we have yet to invent warp drive, shields, phasers, and transporters. This is the problem with sci-fi foke they purely focus on the few tid-bits that have appeared, and seem to forget all the stuff that hasn't. We don't have warp fields, anti-matter reactors etc. The list of technologies invented for the series is much longer than the technology that has appeared.

 

Then there's sci-fi such as star wars. I mean come on, the force? Might as well give the Jedi wands and robes. Sci-fi makes stuff up as and when it needs too. Some authors do base their work in good old science, and then twist it into whatever they need to tell the story. Need I also remind you that series such as superman is science fiction? A solor powered man who can drag planets from orbit. Yeah ok, that's going to happen. Also if superman did throw a punch at full power he'd basically cause a sizable nuclear explosion.

 

/end rant on science fiction

 

 

 

birth ------> death,

beginning -----> end,

 

either way, this is time.

 

and we are in the flow of it

 

What you are actually describing isn't time but a biomechanical process. At best you're describing the transition of high entropy objects that break down into low entropy states.

 

 

 

I have no idea how you got this interpretation from what I wrote.

 

Well for starters your claiming that time is as real as water, then equating the two. They are pretty metaphors, that speak more towards human psychology then the so called true nature of time.

 

 

 

Um, simultaneously? What's that? Can't have simultaneity without time.

 

Yes you can, it merely means two things happen at once.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuC-htf8o88

 

Ok so that video wasn't a fantastic example but you have to admit it was cute. She might not be patting her head and rubbing her tummy very well, but she did at least demonstrate two actions happening at the time (time as a reference tool only) while not occurring at the same point in space. If this little girl was to do this dangling from a rope by her ankles 30 seconds later, she wouldn't collide with her past self, not because time (as in the extra dimension ) has mysteriously prevented it. But because she simply can't. You can not have any kind of time travel where the same two sets of matter suddenly decide to occupies the same space.

 

In fact the only way this could happen is if time was indeed some kind of ever flowing magical river you can travel up and down at will running into your self within the same space. Which, as I've yet to run into myself, or explode because I suddenly appeared within me for no apparent reason, obviously can't be the case.

 

Of course you are absolutely welcome to prove me wrong. If you start travelling back in time so that there are multiple's of you at the same moment I will absolutely accept that time is like a magical river. Until you manage to pull this off (photoshop doesn't count) then time as you are trying to represent it doesn't exist.

 

 

 

That's not the same as whether it exists. You are arguing against a straw man.

If you are a straw man, then that's amazing! I'd like to know how you're able to type

 

But all seriousness. Lets move on from that poor joke.

 

 

 

Nobody has claimed time is a force. A dimension, yes, as per my bus/collision example. It is orthogonal to the spatial dimensions.

 

Ok, lets imagine for a second that time is a dimension. Ok, so how does this dimension work? Presumably if the classical form of time travel is to exist (aka where you can swim around it like the river metaphor that's popular) dimensions must work by endlessly "copying the universe" after all, if you go backwards in time then the universe at that moment in the time stream is the same state as when you left that moment right?

 

Big problem with that, you can not create energy or matter you can only convert between the two. So by those rules the time dimension can not be copying matter and energy like frames in a movie strip.

 

So, therefore time must be something that matter moves through, in the same way it moves through space. So, my question is... why does time appear to control all matter? If you go back in time, suddenly all the matter around you reverts to a previous state, in which case, so would you unless you find some way of removing yourself form time. But if time is all that allows you to function, then now can you isolate yourself from the change you are inflicting on everything else?

 

Heck, we're then back at the old question, what happens if you accidental kill your own dad? Oh dear, well if you kill your own dad by accident, then you can not have been born, therefore you can not have time travelled to kill him in the first place, so if this was to happen then you'd get a headache understanding why, on top of guilt of killing your own dad.

 

So lets face it, when there's a paradox, then there's something that just doesn't work in the system so time obviously can't work in this way.

 

So, if time isn't capturing states of the universe like an ever rolling film clip, and it's not allowing you go kill your own dad, it must work it some other way. If you have another way in which it could work I'd love to hear it.

 

Also if time travel exists in the future, I have to ask the famous question "where's all the tourists?" cause lets face it, human beings would end up selling it if time travel did happen, it's the one constant in the universe. And if you start talking to me about phase cloaks that allow people to move around us unseen I might just have to gently slap you. Cause again, lets face it, human beings epically the tourist kind, just aren't that blooming intelligent.

 

 

 

As I said before, time doesn't exist in the same way that the spatial dimensions don't exist. Good luck trying to do your classical physics problems without them.

 

Yes that's because it doesn't exist at all. I've already talked about the two basic ways time might work, and I've yet to hear a compelling description of how the time dimension works.

 

http://phys.org/news/2012-04-physicists-abolish-fourth-dimension-space.html

 

btw there's some guys who don't think time is a dimension at all.

 

P.S. Time can exist in mathematics just fine, you might even chose to call it an extra dimension. This leaves two possibilities, 1) time is real, and math has predicted it. 2) The sums are wrong, which is why they will predict something, and not explain others.

[krash661]

/start sci-fi rant

 

No it's not. Sure series like star trek have demonstrated iPad style touch screens and thin portable tablets. But at the same time we have yet to invent warp drive, shields, phasers, and transporters. This is the problem with sci-fi foke they purely focus on the few tid-bits that have appeared, and seem to forget all the stuff that hasn't. We don't have warp fields, anti-matter reactors etc. The list of technologies invented for the series is much longer than the technology that has appeared.

 

Then there's sci-fi such as star wars. I mean come on, the force? Might as well give the Jedi wands and robes. Sci-fi makes stuff up as and when it needs too. Some authors do base their work in good old science, and then twist it into whatever they need to tell the story. Need I also remind you that series such as superman is science fiction? A solor powered man who can drag planets from orbit. Yeah ok, that's going to happen. Also if superman did throw a punch at full power he'd basically cause a sizable nuclear explosion.

 

/end rant on science fiction

it appears what is known is only what is allowed to be known to the public

 

What you are actually describing isn't time but a biomechanical process. At best you're describing the transition of high entropy objects that break down into low entropy states.

and this is what is classified as time in the many classifications of it.

[Daniel Foreman]

 

 

it appears what is known is only what is allowed to be known to the public

 

Oh god he's a conspiracy theorist.

 

 

 

and this is what is classified as time in the many classifications of it.

 

Show me where it's written down officially.

[krash661]

Oh god he's a conspiracy theorist.

not at all.

 

 

Show me where it's written down officially.

dictionary

time

time [tīm]

n (plural times)

2. period with limits: a limited period during which an action, process, or condition exists or takes place

5. time as causative force: time conceived as a force capable of acting on people and objects

9. period needed: a period required, allocated, or taken to complete an activity

13. interval: a limited but unspecified period

18. somebody's lifetime: a period during which somebody is alive, especially the most active or productive period in somebody's life

and that's just a dictionary,

there's tons of data on this as i'm sure you know,

again, many classifications of.

but i will also say,

i understand your point.

[Daniel Foreman]

I notice you didn't provide a link to that, I think you're taking a couple of liberties.

[krash661]

I notice you didn't provide a link to that, I think you're taking a couple of liberties.

lol

a link to a dictionary ?

do you not have access to one ?

i'm sure your pc has one.

funny.

 

and also,

it's meaningless and irrelevant to anything what you think about me.

Edited August 15, 2013 by krash661

[swansont]

Well for starters your claiming that time is as real as water, then equating the two. They are pretty metaphors, that speak more towards human psychology then the so called true nature of time.

Never claimed that! I said you could use the water cycle as a way to do timing, under certain conditions.

 

Yes you can, it merely means two things happen at once.

"At once" There's a pesky time reference again!

 

 

 

Ok so that video wasn't a fantastic example but you have to admit it was cute. She might not be patting her head and rubbing her tummy very well, but she did at least demonstrate two actions happening at the time (time as a reference tool only) while not occurring at the same point in space. If this little girl was to do this dangling from a rope by her ankles 30 seconds later, she wouldn't collide with her past self, not because time (as in the extra dimension ) has mysteriously prevented it. But because she simply can't. You can not have any kind of time travel where the same two sets of matter suddenly decide to occupies the same space.

That she can't collide with herself is not an argument against time actually existing as a concept, and it doesn't rebut my example of two objects colliding or not.

 

In fact the only way this could happen is if time was indeed some kind of ever flowing magical river you can travel up and down at will running into your self within the same space. Which, as I've yet to run into myself, or explode because I suddenly appeared within me for no apparent reason, obviously can't be the case.

 

Of course you are absolutely welcome to prove me wrong. If you start travelling back in time so that there are multiple's of you at the same moment I will absolutely accept that time is like a magical river. Until you manage to pull this off (photoshop doesn't count) then time as you are trying to represent it doesn't exist.

Claiming that for time to be real time travel must exist is a straw man argument.

 

If you are a straw man, then that's amazing! I'd like to know how you're able to type

 

But all seriousness. Lets move on from that poor joke.

Yes, let's but that doesn't let you off the hook for making an actual argument against real claims, rather than made-up ones that are false, and thus easily refuted.

 

Ok, lets imagine for a second that time is a dimension. Ok, so how does this dimension work? Presumably if the classical form of time travel is to exist (aka where you can swim around it like the river metaphor that's popular) dimensions must work by endlessly "copying the universe" after all, if you go backwards in time then the universe at that moment in the time stream is the same state as when you left that moment right?

This is moot. Nobody has claimed that time travel as you describe here is possible. So basing an argument against time based on time travel not working is a pointless exercise.

 

 

Yes that's because it doesn't exist at all. I've already talked about the two basic ways time might work, and I've yet to hear a compelling description of how the time dimension works.

Ah, an argument from personal incredulity! You can't come up with examples, and you don't understand, therefore it's wrong! Unfortunately, that's a fallacy.

 

http://phys.org/news/2012-04-physicists-abolish-fourth-dimension-space.html

 

btw there's some guys who don't think time is a dimension at all.

Bully for them, though I don't think they are making the argument that you are, and their idea hasn't been confirmed yet. It's still a proposal.

 

P.S. Time can exist in mathematics just fine, you might even chose to call it an extra dimension. This leaves two possibilities, 1) time is real, and math has predicted it. 2) The sums are wrong, which is why they will predict something, and not explain others.

And now we have a false dichotomy.

[michel123456]

Why not? If that cycle was uniform and you could identify a particular bit of the water, you could use it as a basis for timekeeping, which we view as linear. It's the basic element of a clock — something that regularly repeats.

 

You appear to be equating measurement of time and time itself.

 

You stand on a street corner and notice a large bus go past you. You cross the street. Both you and that bus occupied the same location (the same spatial coordinates), and yet you are not splattered all over the pavement. Why is that, if there is no such thing as time?

(emphasis mine)

Yes.

In the world we live in, one has to use a set of 4 coordinates in order to describe the situation of an object.

i remain perplexed that Daniel accepts the 3 and refuses the 4th.

Edited August 15, 2013 by michel123456

[Daniel Foreman]

I have no problem with a 4 co-ordinate system, that's part of measurements. I have problems with people start talking about time dilation, time travel, and equating time as something a kin to a river or ocean. This is where the reality of time, and the science fiction definition of time become mixed up.

 

I have never claimed time wasn't a measurement system. I've only claimed that a dimension of time as a physical real world element of the universe is a false impression.

[swansont]

I have no problem with a 4 co-ordinate system, that's part of measurements. I have problems with people start talking about time dilation

How does one explain how GPS satellites work, if you can't talk about time dilation?

[michel123456]

I have no problem with a 4 co-ordinate system, that's part of measurements. I have problems with people start talking about time dilation, time travel, and equating time as something a kin to a river or ocean. This is where the reality of time, and the science fiction definition of time become mixed up.

 

I have never claimed time wasn't a measurement system. I've only claimed that a dimension of time as a physical real world element of the universe is a false impression.

If I understand your point clearly, you are O.K. with space as an entity in which things exist, simply that those entities are in a state of motion.

[Daniel Foreman]

That about sums it up michel123456 yes. That motion isn't dependant upon time, it's just motion.

 

 

 

How does one explain how GPS satellites work, if you can't talk about time dilation?

 

To state that more completely, I think the question is. Why didn't GPS work at all when they first established the system until relativity was appled? Why even with the calculations provided by relativity do they keep needing to fix a drift in the system? Relativity doesn't fix the problem entirely it just improves the problem somewhat.

[Delbert]

I have no problem with a 4 co-ordinate system, that's part of measurements. I have problems with people start talking about time dilation, time travel, and equating time as something a kin to a river or ocean. This is where the reality of time, and the science fiction definition of time become mixed up.

Time dilation is part of Einstein's relativity and subsequently shown to be correct with GPS satellites, LHC and cosmic rays to mention a few.

 

Time dilation is doubtless contrary to everyday experience, which might make it something, I for one, find difficult to get my head around. Taking it to extremes and extending it to what one might experience when approaching (say) a black hole (ignoring for one moment the crushing and stretching business); I understand our 'time' would be as we experience it now, but upon looking back at the universe we came from we would see it rushing around and shrinking, possibly to the point where we see the end and death of the universe as we get to touching distance of the event horizon.

 

Whereas, those we left behind would see us getting ever slower to the point of motionlessness when at touching distance to the event horizon.

[swansont]

To state that more completely, I think the question is. Why didn't GPS work at all when they first established the system until relativity was appled?

OK. Answer that without time dilation, because time dilation is the answer you get from relativity.

 

Why even with the calculations provided by relativity do they keep needing to fix a drift in the system? Relativity doesn't fix the problem entirely it just improves the problem somewhat.

Not sure what you mean by a having to fix a drift in the system — are you suggesting there is a drift (or some other clock difference) in GPS clocks that is not present in terrestrial clocks?

[Daniel Foreman]

 

 

OK. Answer that without time dilation, because time dilation is the answer you get from relativity.

 

I don't need to, I just need to know that the figure, even passed through relativity and special relativity mathematics still aren't accurate. This means it's broken, the sum doesn't work. After all saying 2 + 2 = 5 is close to the correct answer, but it's still... well wrong. And that's what they are trying to figure out with the GPS system.

 

 

 

Not sure what you mean by a having to fix a drift in the system — are you suggesting there is a drift in GPS clocks that are not present in terrestrial clocks?

 

GPS Errors are complicated, and occur due to a number of factors. There's time dilation, the effects of gravity and atmospheric conditions slow down radio signals. The general theory of relativity doesn't correct for these errors, so they are using the updated Special Theory of relativity which as I understand it basically takes into account gravity as well. If you want a complete error analysis you can find it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_analysis_for_the_Global_Positioning_System but what it all equates too, is that the calculations involved are still far from perfect.

 

The bit that really interests me in that above document is:

 

 

 

According to the theory of relativity, due to their constant movement and height relative to the Earth-centered, non-rotating approximately inertial reference frame, the clocks on the satellites are affected by their speed. Special relativity predicts that the frequency of the atomic clocks moving at GPS orbital speeds will tick more slowly than stationary ground clocks

 

Notice that they state "GPS orbital speeds will tick more slowly" this doesn't indicate that time itself is slowing down, but instead that the internal mechanisms of the atomic clock are being affected by the speed, and or space at which these clocks are moving. Perhaps they are moving through thicker electromagnetic fields, or a patch of earth gives a greater gravitation pull than the rest (which has been observed on the moon). Perhaps it's undetected solar activity, or perhaps someone in a space suit is shooting a potato gun at it. Either way, the fact that they describe the system as ticking more slowly, rather then saying "time is moving more slowly" goes to demonstrate what I've been saying.

[swansont]

I don't need to, I just need to know that the figure, even passed through relativity and special relativity mathematics still aren't accurate. This means it's broken, the sum doesn't work. After all saying 2 + 2 = 5 is close to the correct answer, but it's still... well wrong. And that's what they are trying to figure out with the GPS system.

 

Wrong? GPS positioning is good to several meters. How is that not accurate?

 

The relativity correction amounts to about 38 microseconds per day, which would amount to more than 10 kilometers of error. That's 7 meters of accumulated error every minute.

 

GPS Errors are complicated, and occur due to a number of factors. There's time dilation, the effects of gravity and atmospheric conditions slow down radio signals. The general theory of relativity doesn't correct for these errors, so they are using the updated Special Theory of relativity which as I understand it basically takes into account gravity as well. If you want a complete error analysis you can find it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_analysis_for_the_Global_Positioning_System but what it all equates too, is that the calculations involved are still far from perfect.

 

Perfection is not claimed, but again, how is accuracy to a few meters "far from perfect"? Is the fact that it works some stroke of luck?

 

 

The bit that really interests me in that above document is:

 

 

Notice that they state "GPS orbital speeds will tick more slowly" this doesn't indicate that time itself is slowing down, but instead that the internal mechanisms of the atomic clock are being affected by the speed, and or space at which these clocks are moving. Perhaps they are moving through thicker electromagnetic fields, or a patch of earth gives a greater gravitation pull than the rest (which has been observed on the moon). Perhaps it's undetected solar activity, or perhaps someone in a space suit is shooting a potato gun at it. Either way, the fact that they describe the system as ticking more slowly, rather then saying "time is moving more slowly" goes to demonstrate what I've been saying.

Is it true that if time ran more slowly, a device to measure time would tick more slowly? (This is rhetorical. The answer is yes)

 

So the fact that clocks tick more slowly doesn't actually give you a definitive answer. Based solely on that information, you can't draw a conclusion.

 

Now add in the following: other tests of relativity show no effects due to the space it's moving through. The clocks are shielded against effects of EM fields. The clocks are in different orbital paths, so there is no common sampling of gravity (besides which, how would gravity affect the clocks outside of relativistic effects?) Undetected solar activity — how does that happen with clocks that pass between us and the sun?

 

As for the speed, well, yes, that's what relativity predicts. But it's not some mechanical effect on the clock — it happens the same to clocks and oscillators that use different atoms (in the case of atomic clocks) and even mechanisms, as in the case of crystal oscillators, and even particle decay, in the case of muons, and they have no moving parts! Feel free to come up with a mechanism that will explain all that. Succeed where nobody else has.

 

The short answer is that people who write the articles already know relativity has been thoroughly tested and shown to be right, so they don't draw the distinction between a clock ticking slow and time running slow, because the mechanical effect option has already been ruled out, and the two mean the same thing in this kind of context.

[Daniel Foreman]

Wrong? GPS positioning is good to several meters. How is that not accurate?

 

The relativity correction amounts to about 38 microseconds per day, which would amount to more than 10 kilometers of error. That's 7 meters of accumulated error every minute.

 

 

Several meters? That's not very accurate at all. I'm just under 2 meters tall, so if I want it to pin point a button on my shirt it's pretty rubbish really

 

7 meters of error every minute is actually a lot more than I thought it would be. I mean that's 11.6 cm per second. That is a really noticeable amount. As for 10 K per day, if you want to find your house, then that's pretty far out of your way!

 

 

 

Perfection is not claimed, but again, how is accuracy to a few meters "far from perfect"? Is the fact that it works some stroke of luck?

 

Great, then we can agree the math doesn't work. It gets "in the ball park" but that's all.

 

 

 

So the fact that clocks tick more slowly doesn't actually give you a definitive answer. Based solely on that information, you can't draw a conclusion.

 

When faced with "stuff moves" and "stuff moves because time allows it too". I'll take the first response. Because yes, I can easily confirm that stuff moves. I can't easily confirm that stuff moves faster or slower because time itself is going faster or slower. I also don't accept that you can throw a crew across the galaxy at near to light speed as possible, only to have them age very slowly, while the earth grows old fast because time has slowed down for them.

 

Now what I can accept, is that as you approach light speed matter within that ship is "dampened down", so it's less easy to move. I don't think it would have anything to do with time itself slowing down, I think it would be a mechanical process. After all you are moving relative to the motion of that ship with that ship. If you did hit light speed it makes absolute sense that while at light speed you wouldn't be able to freely move around within that ship. After all if the ship is moving at light speed, and you try to walk from the back to the front, then you are then breaking the speed of light are you not?

 

I don't think what Einstein was describing was ever a dilation of time or the alteration of a time dimension, but simply a way of describing the behaviour of matter under the most extreme condition.

[krash661]

this argument is starting to sound very familiar,

familiar as to a known crank/ " troll " (what ever that means, funny word) on another site.

 

but i do have to say,

i read contradictions that were never realized by the individual.

and is continuing to do so.

for me,

this conversation is done.

Edited August 15, 2013 by krash661

[hyperion1is]

That's a mighty fine story you guys are telling yourselves. It's also total hokum. There is absolutely no evidence that time is a river, an ocean, or any other kind of liquid moving entity, force, dimension or whatever. This is the kind of rubbish that science fiction uses to paint a pretty picture in your minds. As far as I'm concerned it's right up there with harry potter waving his magic stick to turn mice into goblets. Don't confuse science fiction with proven fact guys.

 

 

I wasn't here for a while. But I see that you totally missed the river analogy, in the sense that was about reading and not something else. But that's not the point. I noticed more and more that you like to attack the person instead of an idea. To discredit someone doesn't make your idea any more valid. And I can't see what is the gain here. To have an idea validated without the scrutiny of other persons. This is actually an important aspects of posting in a scientific forum: Scrutiny.

 

If you don't like other people input why do you post?

 

 

You twisted the river analogy to fit your propose, whatever that propose is. The river analogy was only relevant between swansont and me. It was in layman terms for which swansont didn't needed to make this effort, to talk to a laymen. But if he did, I don't think is a reason for punishment.

 

PS. swansont, thank you for your effort but I think you missed my idea a bit. My point was/is, you can't have more that one cycle for time. This is the problem when we interpret this time as linear and is hard to "brake" out of it.

Edited August 15, 2013 by hyperion1is